2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On March 4, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2008 against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose business purpose is the maritime transport business.

B. The Plaintiff received 13 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Energy”) during the second taxable period in 2008 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and paid the amount of value-added tax for the second taxable period in 2008 after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. C. The Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and notified the Plaintiff on March 4, 201 that the said input tax amount was not deducted from the output tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on May 26, 201, but was dismissed on July 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from BB energy and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. Even if not, the Plaintiff was bona fide and was not negligent for receiving a false tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff had been supplied with oil on the sea while running a maritime transport business with 19 vessels. The Plaintiff, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and CC, the captain of 20 years prior to 9 years ago, who was the captain of CE, had been aware of the fact that E orders oil on BB energy through the E brokerage, but E did not know where E actually generated oil. The Plaintiff did not have visited the oil storage or office of BB energy.

2) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from BB energy, and transferred the value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of value of tax invoice entered in the tax invoice to another agricultural bank account under BB Energy name (OO-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOOO) in the name of KimF, separately from this, to the national bank account in the name of KimF (OO-O-O-O-OOOOOO).

3) After the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted a survey on petroleum product data on GG for a limited company, it notified the Busan Regional Tax Office of the data that a tax invoice equivalent to the value of OOOOO which the said company issued to BB energy is a fake tax invoice that is not a real transaction. The Busan Regional Tax Office conducted a survey on the data on BB energy from February 17, 2009 to March 31, 2009, and then filed a complaint with BB Energy and its former H and actual actors on the data, deeming that the instant tax invoice constitutes a fake tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff without a real transaction.

4) On March 20, 2009, OE made a false statement on BB energy, and operated BB energy by leasing D’s vessel, which is the captain. On March 20, 2009, OE took advantage of D’s supply of oil to the Plaintiff’s vessel. After the supply of oil, OE made a statement on March 30, 200 that BB energy did not actually supply oil to the Plaintiff, and that 12% of the supply value of the oil to the Plaintiff’s original tax invoice was supplied to the Plaintiff, and that 2% of the supply value was supplied to the Kim F’s company for sale of the oil to the Plaintiff’s account, and that 2% of the supply value was also supplied to the Plaintiff’s company, including the Plaintiff’s supply value, after the supply of the oil to the Plaintiff’s O police station. On March 30, 209, 200 to the Plaintiff’s tax office, 20% of the supply value of the oil was also supplied to the Plaintiff’s company.

5) On September 28, 2009, the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted the portion of the tax invoice which was pronounced false as the false tax invoice against the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and imposed a disposition that there was no suspicion (Evidence of Evidence) on the instant tax invoice. Accordingly, on December 3, 2009, the Busan District Court issued 2009Da4751-1 (Separation of Evidence) on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on July 31, 2008 from July 31, 2008 to December 31, 2008, by pretending that the oil equivalent to the total amount of KRW 246 of the BB energy's false sales tax invoice under the name of the company, and received six copies of the false purchase tax invoice under the name of the company and was sentenced to suspended execution for August 28, 2008.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 13, Eul evidence 2 to 6, witness 2 testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to the case where the contents of the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with the actual supplier or the supplier of the goods or services, the price, and the timing of the transaction, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). In addition, the issue is whether the taxpayer is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice, as proved by the tax authority that the tax invoice submitted as the basis for the input tax credit was false without a real transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact. In cases where it is proved that the transaction with the supplier as claimed by the taxpayer was false, it is difficult for the taxpayer to present materials such as evidence, etc. concerning the actual transaction with the supplier as stated in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug.).

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff would not be aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been able to receive 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the total amount of 20% of the 20% of the total amount of 30% of the 20% of the 2000-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 3rd amount of the 20-year amount of the 20-year amount of the 3rd amount of the 20-year amount of the 3rd amount of the 3rd amount of the supply.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit and the disposition of this case is lawful (it is true that the plaintiff's assertion that he was provided with oil through E and received the tax invoice of this case, even if he did not operate BB energy, due to the fact that E supplied oil without materials and delivered BB energy tax invoices in the name of BB energy through E in light of the fact that E was merely used in the tax invoice funeral by borrowing the name, not through BB energy, and that E actually managed the account deposited with E, E supplied oil without materials, and issued BB energy tax invoices in the name of BB energy through Me II, the actor

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.